Failed Democratic presidential candidate Robert Francis O’Rourke ― a transplanted Irish Catholic who illogically wants people to call him by a fraudulent Hispanic diminutive “Beto” ― was met with jeers and demands that he “get the hell out” during a recent campaign stop in Houston, Texas.
Last week, O’Rourke announced he is running for Texas governor, hoping to unseat Republican incumbent Gov. Greg Abbott. During a Houston campaign stop, O’Rourke met with a Texas rancher named Robert — who made no bones about telling the former presidential candidate to “get the hell out.”
After shaking O’Rourke’s hand, the man said, “Beto, I’m Robert. I’m native Houstonian. On behalf of the ranchers, the oil and gas companies, the farmers: Like doing as Maxine Waters said, I’m in your grill, telling you ‘Don’t come back. We don’t want you here. Get the hell out! Adios!'”
A stupidly grinning O’Rourke told Robert, “Thank you. Thank you.”
But the rancher continued, “Hey, Beto! Come and take it! It ain’t going to happen. You lost twice. You lost twice. No means no.”
The crowd around them then began shouting at Beto, “Hell, no! Hell, no!”
The rest of the campaign stop went rapidly downhill from there
Last week, O’Rourke said, “I’m running to serve the people of Texas, and I want to make sure that we have a governor that serves everyone, helps to bring this state together to do the really big things before us and get past the small, divisive politics and policies of Greg Abbott.”
He also added that he stands by his vow to take away certain firearms from Texans.
During an interview with CNN’s Dana Bash for the network’s “State of the Union,” O’Rourke said that he will work toward taking certain guns out of the hands of Texans if he is elected governor of the traditionally red state.
“Look, we are a state that has a long, proud tradition of responsible gun ownership,” O’Rourke said. “And most of us here in Texas do not want to see our friends, our family members, our neighbors shot up with these weapons of war. So yes, I still hold this view.”
During a 2019 Democratic primary debate, O’Rourke proposed a mandatory buyback of certain weapons.
“Hell yes, we’re going to take your AR-15, your AK-47,” he said at the time. “We’re not going to allow it to be used against our fellow Americans anymore!”
On Sunday, O’Rourke said that Texas residents have spoken up about their concerns surrounding a bill Abbott signed into law over the summer allowing concealed carry without a permit.
“We don’t want extremism in our gun laws,” he said. “We want to protect the Second Amendment. We want to protect the lives of our fellow Texans. And I know that when we come together and stop this divisive extremism that we see from Greg Abbott right now, we’re going to be able to do that.”
O’Rourke is, of course, wrong. There is nothing extreme about concealed nor open carry. There is nothing “military” about the AR-15 or AK-47. They are single-shot rifles that automatically load the next road as the previously fired round’s casing is ejected. The dirty little secret is that most of the elitist leaders of the Fascist movement know this is true, they just won’t acknowledge it.
As for Robert Francis, he probably is too stupid to know the facts. He is dutifully parroting the propaganda of the Leftist Democrat Party. He is clinging to the Fascist Left’s misguided ― and likely deliberately glossed-over ― belief that the U.S. has an illicit love affair with guns.
Every time there is an unfortunate mass shooting in the U.S. everyone ― from Hillary Clinton to Jimmy Kimmel — is suddenly an expert on guns and how to prevent these evils from happening again. Always, their “answer” is more gun control.
Why don’t these people call for the banning of knives or vehicles or pressure cookers or cell phones or any other countless items used time and again in attacks here and around the world? Why is it that guns are the single thing that the American Fascist Left suddenly and emphatically cares about when there’s a tragedy?
The irony is that when honest but still dedicated gun control advocates, such as former FiveThirtyEight writer Leah Libresco, come to stunning conclusions when they actually analyze the data behind the 30,000+ lives that are ended in the U.S. each year by guns.
What do they find? For one thing, most of those deaths are suicides, accidental deaths, and gang violence like that in Chicago — which the left loves to ignore. Here at America’s Conservative Voice, we have often written about the statistics that time and again disprove the narrative we have a love affair with gun violence in this country and that somehow the answer is more gun control.
While sometimes these facts do sway the intellectually honest (as was the case with Leah Libresco), so often these truths are brushed aside in an emotional tidal wave of political rhetoric. It’s like none of it matters.
Why the hypocrisy? Why attack guns and ignore the other countless ways people are attacked and killed? Why ignore the facts behind gun deaths in this country? Why ignore the fact that gun control measures ― for example, Chicago is “gun-free” unless you’re a criminal ― are demonstrably ineffective?
Part of it, of course, is that people have been long since conditioned to think about this emotionally. It’s easy after a tragedy like this to resort to knee-jerk “get em!” mentalities wherein guns are easily blamed for the violence they bring upon others, but only when in the hands of those who misuse them.
While there may be a lot of well-meaning, caring, and compassionate left-of-center Americans who oppose guns because they really want to help stop evil, is really just about emotion and compassion? Is that really where the anti-Second Amendment rhetoric gets its strength? Perhaps, but It appears to us we are missing a greater cause.
Probably, we on the side of the efficacy of the Second Amendment do not always grasp that when we’re dealing with the anti-gun crowd, the roots of this sentiment are not exclusively in compassion and emotion — even though many may think that’s exactly why they believe what they believe.
It goes a lot farther back than that; back to our founding, to be precise.
Guns are the great equalizer. They give power to a petite woman defending herself against a burly male attacker. They give a father power over the home intruders threatening his sleeping family. They give a would-be carjacking victim power over the thief with the knife.
The Founders enshrined the Second Amendment in our Constitution for several reasons, but one of them ― and this is critical ― was to equalize citizens with their government. Historians Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen wrote:
“Over the years, the militia preface has become thoroughly (and often, deliberately) misinterpreted to imply that the framers intended citizens to bear arms only in the context of an army under the authority of the state. In fact, militias were the exact opposite of a state-controlled army: the state militias taken together were expected to serve as a counterweight to the federal army, and the further implication was that citizens were to be as well armed as the government itself. [emphasis added]”
Why? As Noah Webster wrote:
“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.”
George Mason, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, told his colleagues that the British Parliament was advised by the then-governor of Pennsylvania that the best way to keep the American colonies in check was to disarm the people; that it was “… the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.”
And there it is.
Our Second Amendment is rooted firmly in ensuring that citizens not only have the right to defend themselves individually against harm ― like the examples given above; home invasion, rape, theft, and so on ― but that they are able to defend themselves against a government that becomes tyrannical.
Neither I nor any of my fellow pro-gun Americans, are advocating for the second American Revolution. Heaven forbid — I pray we never see such a day. My point is simple: An armed citizenry is a counterbalance against a government that gets too big, too powerful — and God-forbid — evil. On the other hand, I believe we all know that our government is becoming just that.
Given that reality, we must consider what the American left love more than anything.
Big, powerful government. And what is a threat to a big, powerful government? Citizens who are equally as powerful.
Be aware of the Fascist Left’s mindset. Not every single person who dislikes guns and wants more gun control is diabolically in line with some plot to disarm the American citizens in order for the government to have its way with us.
Understand this: The argument’s logical end is there.
When we consider that no other form of violence is so voraciously targeted by the Left; when we consider that no law would have prevented any of the mass shootings of the last 25 years. that consequently what the anti-gun crowd is ultimately arguing for is a comprehensive ban on guns — we can easily conclude why the Founders crafted our Second Amendment in the first place.
The debate that inevitably springs up after each notorious mass shooting isn’t exclusively about compassion. We all — Republican, Democrat, White, Black, Asian, Hispanic, Native American, Gay, Straight, Christian, Muslim, Atheist — cringe as we watch lives destroyed by evil men and women.
To say that the American left is the only entity with any kind of compassion is not only dishonest, but it’s also destructive. It distracts from the real crux of the issue: Gun control isn’t just about stopping evil. That is never going to happen.
We can talk all day long about statistics and facts and reality —but here’s the thing: for the left — deep, deep down whether they admit it or not—this is ultimately about control. If it was only about compassion, then they’d argue equally against all things that can be used to kill people.
After all, why so voraciously advocate for measures that are never going to stop evil — but that will absolutely limit the citizenry’s autonomy?
All-powerful government control doesn’t have to come violently and suddenly. It starts slowly, quietly —by stripping away what makes us individually powerful. They are well on their way to accomplishing this, through the likes of Robert Francis O’Rourke and others in the Fascist Left Democrat Party like him.
We must say to them as the rancher said to O’Rourke: “Don’t come back. We don’t want you here. Get the hell out! Adios!”
Mike Nichols is an advocate of the counterrevolution with a four-step plan to defeat Fascism: We Organize. We Stand. We Resist. We Fight. He is a regular contributor at the GenZConservative news website and has a regular blog at Facebook presence at Americas Conservative Voice-Facebook.